Suffolk Home First South

Updated 19 March 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This announced comprehensive inspection was carried out on 7 to 9 January 2019. We gave the service notice of the inspection because we needed to be sure that someone would be available.

The inspection activity started on 7 January 2019 and ended 9 January 2019, and was undertaken by one inspector. On 7 January 2019, we visited the office and spoke with the two registered managers, a senior occupational therapist, a team leader and four support workers, who the service referred to as reablement support workers. We reviewed 10 people’s care records, records relating to the management of the service, training records, and the recruitment records of one new support worker. The second day of our inspection on 8 January 2019, we spoke with seven people who used the service and five people’s relatives on the telephone to gain their views of the service. On 9 January 2019, we spoke with two people who used the service on the telephone and received electronic feedback from a community professional.

We reviewed information we held about the service, including notifications we received from the service. Notifications are required by law which tells us about important events and incidents and the actions taken by the service. We also reviewed information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority and members of the public.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Updated 19 March 2019

Suffolk Home First South provides an assessment and reablement service to people who require personal care, help with daily living activities and other practical tasks. This can include people who have not had care services before, who require care following discharge from hospital or whose care needs have recently changed. The service works alongside other agencies such as health and external care providers usually for the short term period of usually up to six weeks, encouraging people to develop the confidence and skills to carry out these activities themselves and continue to live at home. People may be supported for a longer period of time, this is assessed on people’s individual needs. When we visited the service’s office for our inspection on 7 January 2019, the service was providing the regulatory activity of personal care to 55 people. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given notice of this inspection to make sure that someone was available to see us.

At the service’s last inspection of 8 June 2016, this service was rated good overall and in each key question. At this inspection we identified that people continued to receive a safe, effective, caring and responsive service. Improvements had been made in the key question well-led, which is now rated as outstanding.

There were two registered managers in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received a service which was extremely well-led. The registered managers were very knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities in providing people with high quality care and support. The registered managers had systems in place to continuously improve the service and used any issues that arose to improve the service. There were systems to assess and monitor the service provided. Where improvements were identified swift actions were taken to address them to ensure people were provided with an extremely high quality service at all times. There was a very open culture and people using the service and staff were encouraged to share their views of the service and these were valued and used to drive improvement.

People continued to receive a safe service. Risks to people were managed, including risks from abuse and in their daily lives. The service learned from incidents to improve the service. There were systems to ensure there enough support workers to ensure that all planned visits for people were completed. Support workers were recruited safely. Where people required support with their medicines, this was done safely. There were infection control processes to reduce the risks of cross infection.

People continued to receive an effective service. Support workers were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people using the service. Where people required assistance with their dietary needs, this was provided. People were supported to have access to health professionals where needed. The service worked with other organisations involved in people’s care to provide a consistent service. The service understood and worked to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People continued to receive a caring service. People told us about the positive relationships they had with their support workers. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were respected and promoted. People’s views were listened to and valued. People were central to the care they received and were consulted throughout their care provision.

People continued to receive a responsive service. People received personalised care and support which was assessed, planned for and delivered to meet their individual needs. A complaints procedure was in place and people’s concerns were addressed. There were no people using the service who required end of their life care, but systems were in place would this be required.